State v. Rosales

• Decision Date: 03 June 2004
• Docket Number: No. 27,949.,27,949.
• Citation: 2004 NMSC 22,136 N.M. 25,94 P.3d 768
• Parties: STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis ROSALES, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

94 P.3d 768

136 N.M. 25

2004 NMSC 22

STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis ROSALES, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 27,949.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

June 3, 2004.

John Bigelow, Chief Public Defender, Sheila Lewis, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant.

Patricia A. Madrid, Attorney General, Katherine Zinn, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee.

OPINION

MINZNER, Justice.

{1} Defendant Luis Rosales, Jr., appeals from a judgment and sentence entered following his convictions of both first-degree murder, contrary to NMSA 1978, § 30-2-1(A)(1) (1994) (deliberate intent murder), and conspiracy to commit tampering with evidence, contrary to NMSA 1978, §§ 30-22-5 (1963, prior to 2003 amendment) (tampering with evidence) and 30-28-2 (1979) (conspiracy). Defendant received a sentence of life imprisonment plus eighteen months. We have jurisdiction in this case pursuant to Article VI, Section 2 of the New Mexico Constitution and Rule 12-102(A)(1) NMRA 2004. We hold, under the facts of this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of two defense witnesses that may have established a third person's motive to commit the murder for which Defendant was charged. While the evidence was relevant, Defendant's insufficient offer of proof prevents us from determining on direct appeal whether the district court properly excluded the evidence as hearsay. Therefore, we affirm Defendant's convictions.

I

{2} At Defendant's trial, Sammy Martinez was an important witness for the prosecution. Martinez testified that he was at his auto shop on January 17, 2002. Also present at Martinez's auto shop were Defendant, Gabriel Sedillo, Peter Alcorta, and Wayne Sharp ("the victim"). The victim wanted to borrow Martinez's Chevrolet Blazer to go check on his unemployment payment. Martinez saw Defendant and the victim leave together, and he assumed Sedillo accompanied them because Sedillo was no longer around the shop. Defendant and Sedillo returned some time later, and Martinez noticed blood inside the vehicle. When Martinez asked about the blood and the victim, Sedillo said something to the effect that "[the victim] is not here anymore."

{3} Martinez testified that the three men then left the shop, because Defendant and Sedillo wanted to go to the lake to clean the vehicle. In the vehicle, Defendant confessed to Martinez that he had killed the victim. After dropping Defendant off at a friend's house, Martinez and Sedillo went to a car wash to clean the Blazer. Martinez cleaned the vehicle. Blood would not come off some of the upholstery, so later that night Sedillo, Alcorta, and Martinez cut the upholstery out of the Blazer. Sedillo put the upholstery in a plastic bag. The group left the shop and went to a creek where Sedillo appears to have disposed of the plastic bag and one of the seat cushions from the Blazer. A few days after the murder, Martinez voluntarily went to the police and described what happened. Martinez ultimately pleaded guilty to two counts of tampering with evidence and was placed on probation for two years. As a condition of his probation, Martinez agreed to testify against Defendant and Sedillo.

{4} At trial, Defendant attempted to create reasonable doubt as to whether he committed murder by raising the possibility that it was Martinez who had killed the victim. The evidence showed the murder had taken place in Martinez's vehicle. Martinez's pocket knife was used to cut the upholstery out of the Blazer. The police suspected the knife used by Martinez could have also been the murder weapon that was never recovered. Martinez told the police he had thrown the knife out of his vehicle. At trial, however, Martinez testified that the knife was left in the Blazer when he brought the vehicle to the police to be searched. Also, Martinez actively participated in covering up the murder by helping clean the Blazer and assisting Sedillo in disposing of upholstery from the vehicle.

{5} In support of his theory that Martinez actually murdered the victim, Defendant presented the testimony of Leticia Rodriguez, a roommate of the victim at the time he was murdered. Rodriguez testified about Martinez's relationship to the victim. She stated there was tension in the relationship and a couple of times she heard Martinez make threats against the victim's life. A couple of weeks before the murder, Rodriguez recalled Martinez stating with respect to the victim, "One of these days I'm going to take that motherf____r for a ride." Rodriguez understood this statement to be a threat because Martinez's tone was serious and he appeared "pissed off" when he made the statement. Rodriguez testified that Martinez had made similar remarks on several other occasions, such as "One of these days I'm going to get rid of that motherf____r."

{6} Although the district court permitted Defendant to present evidence of the animosity between Martinez and the victim, the court excluded testimony from Rodriguez and Candace Campbell regarding statements they allegedly heard the victim make concerning a debt Martinez owed him. The State moved to exclude any testimony by either of those two witnesses pertaining to statements that the victim might have made a few weeks prior to the murder about Martinez owing him money and the reason for the supposed debt. The State argued the testimony was hearsay and was not admissible under any exception. Defendant responded that the statements were not hearsay — they were not being offered to prove the existence of a debt, but were offered instead as evidence of a motive for Martinez to murder the victim. Defendant's theory was that Martinez apparently found it more profitable to kill the victim than pay him back the money he owed him. The district court excluded the statements, because they were "too far removed" and "too remote."

II

{7} On appeal, Defendant argues that the district court erred by refusing to allow Rodriguez and Campbell to testify to statements made by the victim concerning a debt Martinez owed him. Defendant argues that his constitutional right to present a defense was violated by the district court's ruling. A criminal defendant has a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution "to present his own witnesses to establish a defense." Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967). However, that right has never been absolute or unlimited. The United States Supreme Court has held that a defendant's interest in presenting evidence may at times "bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process." Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 55, 107 S.Ct. 2704, 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987). Specifically, state rules of evidence "do not abridge an accused's right to present a defense so long as they are not `arbitrary' or `disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve.'" United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 308, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413 (1998) (quoting Rock, 483 U.S. at 56, 107 S.Ct. 2704).

{8} Our traditional rules of relevancy and hearsay are designed to ensure reliability in the fact-finding process and are not arbitrary or disproportionate to this legitimate purpose. See State v. Sanders, 117 N.M. 452, 459-60, 872 P.2d 870, 877-78 (1994) ("A defendant's right to present evidence on his own behalf is subject to his compliance with `established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.'") (quoting Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973)). The United States Supreme Court has "never questioned the power of States to exclude evidence through the application of evidentiary rules that themselves serve the interests of fairness and reliability — even if the defendant would prefer to see that evidence admitted." Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690, 106 S.Ct. 2142, 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986). Therefore, the evidence complained of by Defendant is not admissible unless it satisfies our relevancy and hearsay rules.

{9} We believe the district court might have excluded the evidence in this case because it appeared to be hearsay and because no exception seemed to apply. That was the State's argument, so it would be reasonable to believe the district court's decision reflected that analysis. The words the district court used, however, the reference to "remoteness," make us uncertain whether the ruling, at least in part, reflected a sense that, on balance, the probative value of the statements was outweighed by other considerations. We consider the latter possibility first, because "we may affirm on grounds upon which the trial court did not rely unless those grounds depend on facts that [the opposing party] did not have a fair opportunity to address in the proceedings below." State v. Torres, 1999-NMSC-010, ¶ 22, 127 N.M. 20, 976 P.2d 20. There is authority in other jurisdictions that would support affirmance on this ground.

A

{10} A number of courts in other jurisdictions have held that the motive of a third person is not admissible, unless there is at least some other evidence to connect the third person to the offense. For example, the Alaska Supreme Court has held that evidence of a third party's motive is only admissible if the defense produces other evidence that tends to directly connect the third person with the commission of the crime charged. Smithart v. State, 988 P.2d 583, 586 (Alaska 1999); accord State v. Hill, 196 Conn. 667, 495 A.2d 699, 703 (1985) (same rule). The rationale generally offered for such a rule is that the evidence could confuse the issues and waste judicial resources. See Smithart, 988 P.2d at 586-87 ("[I]f evidence of motive alone upon the part of other persons were admissible ... in a case involving the killing of a man who had led an active and aggressive life it might easily be possible...